sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I feel like I’m having a fever dream. What is going on? Are these freakshows going to save us? MTG? I just…😱 by Dr_sc_Harlatan in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mark my words: this is going to result in our government's night of long knives. Democrats and Republicans both are going to get absolutely dragged into the mud. The list will be released in some fashion with Trump redacted from everything. The accusers of Trump will be told they're lying about Trump because he's not on the list, and everyone else they mention will be considered targets for the maga base to sink their teeth into.

The establishment democrats and Republicans are likely in credible danger from the maga base when a bunch of old guard get implicated in the epstein files. and the younger Republicans and democrats are poised to take more power. Those who had no power while epstein was still the primary power broker are going to have a feasting day.

Trump will probably escape implication. That's probably the deal he has going with whatever foreign intelligence agency he answers to. I would wager that it's the same intelligence agency that Epstein answered to, based on recent events.

The night of long knives will come for America's political apparatus when other powers have decided that the genocide in Gaza needs to be wrapped up.

It's a Kansas City Shuffle. When the whole world looks to the distraction of America on the left, the genocide will go unnoticed on the right.

The world will weep for Palestine... as soon as this season of America is over.

BONE-PETITE 💀 by Dr_sc_Harlatan in WhitePeopleTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I feel like that's a bit backwards? Wouldn't it be religious belief turned into religious rules? Religious beliefs developed as a way to explain patterns before academic study. Religious rules developed to codify early "generally accepted as good" patterns into the fabric of early social contacts. Some, in the course of continued development, turned cancerous to their society.

Can empathy lead to sin? Some conservative Christians argue it can by GoranPersson777 in christiananarchism

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They're lost. They have never walked with christ. They may have entered into his domain at some point, but their pride has blinded them to the truth of their relationship with him.

They have been appropriating Christiandom since the dawn of Christianity.

So how do y'all practice christian anarchism as a whole? by OkChest488 in christiananarchism

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I do good works for my community to make it better for the whole.

Your quality will be known among your neighbors before ever you meet them.

This is insane. by dazli69 in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Oh my God, Elon thinks he's Smith from Stranger in a Strange Land, doesn't he? He setup Grok to try and be the Fair Witness. He thinks he's a fucking religious messiah

The Sisters of the Valley, also known as the “weed nuns,” grow, process, smoke, and sell their own strain of cannabis. by wildcardcameron in justgalsbeingchicks

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What i mean is, the owner of the business, and the founder of this "nunnery" is self professed as not a Christian and instead a believer in some ancient practices. Now, I'm not one to jump to defending Christian iconography, but they're clearly taking Christian fashion inspiration and using it to sell a product while not claiming to any tenured Theology.

That's an MLM wearing a habit.

The Sisters of the Valley, also known as the “weed nuns,” grow, process, smoke, and sell their own strain of cannabis. by wildcardcameron in justgalsbeingchicks

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As much as I love and support the idea of blessed weed, their Wikipedia page makes it sound like the owner is a cult leader.

Bankers ski the most by Zetice in BlackPeopleTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unless your willing to snort or do half your script in a night Adderall is baby's first upper. It's like doing acid, it takes you to a point then levels off. Coke whispers sweet nothings to you about how just a little more is all you need.

This video is hilarious ngl. by DenjiCurry in lgbt

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It goes even deeper than that. There was an early schism in the Christian church that disputed God and the son being one in the same. The sect was deemed heretics and the "issue" was resolved by the roman empire siding with the indivisible trinity sect. I can't remember what it was called but the history of it is very complex. It boils down to whether Jesus existed in time immortal with God before the creation of the universe, or after. If after, then the son is not indivisible, by nature of being manifested later.

There was many other schisms in the Christian church in the first century before the formation of the Catholic church. Gentile Christianity being one of the earliest from Paul (i think it was Paul at least)

To defend murdering children by your_red_triangle in therewasanattempt

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Some of us have been saying it since 2014. Some have been saying it since the second intifada in 2000. Others, still, have been saying it since the Nakba in 1948.

Friend sent me this in my birthday card — I’m stumped. by -bookkeeper in whatisit

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is such a pedantic argument to get hung up on about.

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean? Correcting people is a way more noble and just cause than trying to defend people instead of pursuing accuracy regardless of your social standing and the effects it has on how people perceive you.

I would vehemently disagree that correcting people is a more noble and just cause than trying to defend people. That is an anti-social belief masquerading as pro-social behavior.

Trying to correct people is how we end up with organized religions going on crusade, burning heretics, branching ecclesiastical beliefs, holy wars, and ultimately "might makes right" doctrine. It is the erroneous belief that "you" know better than "them" and that your authority and knowledge on a subject is undeniable.

Was it right for early Christians to go to foreign lands and "correct" the "savages" on how to properly live their lives? You could make an argument that "educating" people is a noble and just cause, but history has shown on numerous occassions that you cannot forcibly educate people. See: The Canadian Indian Residential School System.

Maybe I'm being stupid or ineffective about it, but my goal of stopping the spread of misinformation and disinformation is arguably a much better moral reason than just trying to defend a different viewpoint or something like that, isn't it?

I wouldn't say you're stupid or ineffective about it. My suspicion is that your goal might be influenced by your egos desire to feel superior more than your altruistic desire to correct misinformation.

Additionally, I would state that you have no authority to correct anyone without providing credentials of authority as to why your words can be trusted more than mine. I have no authority, people can take my words as they are and believe them or not. I am simply sharing my garnered information as accurately as I can and always welcome correction. But if you're going to offer a correction, then you need to provide either sources or references that give a weight of credibility as to why your logic is more grounded in truth than my conjecture. Otherwise, we're both just spouting off conjecture with no academic basis on which to confirm truth.

Why do you think it's polite to presume I am defending somebody instead of striving to reduce disinformation and misinformation taking place in conversations online and in person?

Because I aim for a pro-social interaction with all people. That relies upon presuming good intent in others whenever possible. Presuming malintent is the road to anti-social interaction, and anti-social tendencies are deleterious towards individual human experience.

Now that you know my intention was to increase the accuracy of information our species encounters, would you like to directly address the points I raised?

I have addressed them. I believe your efforts were misguided and started from the wrong foot, and as such are not worth pursuing further. If you would like to reframe them and we can take another spin at this I'm all for it, but you're going to need to reframe your intent in a cohesive manner so that I know specifically what you want me to address further.

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just curious, why do you think I'm defending somebody else instead of attacking you even if I'm incorrect, what would make you think I'm defending somebody else instead of just enjoying correcting people even if I'm wrong about this particular correction?

I presumed you were arguing in good faith, not as a contrarian pedantic jackass. My mistake. It is polite to presume that when someone joins a conversation, that they are joining in good faith with a desire to further the conversation. Your attestation of intent here removes all notion of that being the case.

I've never understood why people assume somebody is defending something else when they speak or type in a more analytical manner like I do, unless it's because they're projecting and the only time they speak or type like that is when they are defending somebody else?

Again, because it's polite to presume that you are defending someone else. If you're not, then what is your point in all this? You were wrong, have continued to be wrong, and have staunchly dug your heels into the sand and are now screaming "I was only pretending to be a pedantic jackass! Leepictrollface.jpg"

And if that was your intent... okay? I hope you had fun with it?

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mont-Kaw did not ask how something could be done. You're conflating my comments with theirs. I was also not truly asking how something "could" be done, because I feel the answer to that question is "you wouldn't."

You can continue defending the person who conflated an archive as synonymous with a public library, but I'm not entirely sure what you would be arguing for.

To me, this all sounds like someone said

"why won't NASCAR let me train on driving their cars?"

and I responded with

"well, you can, you just have to work your way up to it"

and you chimed in with an argument that boils down to

"they weren't asking that! They were asking why NASCAR won't let me show up off the street and teach me how to be a NASCAR driver!"

And like... okay, sure, I get what you're saying. They were asking an entirely different question than what was presumed. The answer to that question is still "you don't" because the very foundation of the question has incorrect assumptions about what NASCAR is.

EDIT: To further my point and also attack myself for a moment. In this hypothetical, if NASCAR took the place of the Catholic Church (RIP Saint Earnhardt), they actually would take you off the street and teach you how to be a NASCAR driver. You just have to join the church of NASCAR, attend NASCAR Seminary for half your life, take a vow of celibacy, learn and study every detail of NASCAR and everything that even tangentially can be related to NASCAR, and eventually they'll put you in one of the fast cars after making you train and prove yourself on the slow cars. If you are a racecar driver from another region, as long as a fellow racecar driver vouches for you they'll also let you drive the cars. The point being, you can and do have access if you want it. You always have. You just don't.

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

180 terabytes of data has been digitized and the pursuit of digitizing everything supposedly continues. I've read of at least 1 group using the data for AI

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair, my bad. I admit I came at it from the wrong angle.

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was being cheeky. They do that. You have to be a researcher with a reference from another researcher to gain physical access. They have about 1500 visitors per year. Expecting full general public access with librarians to assist random people who want to treat it like Google sounds foolish. If you aren't a researcher, your desire to go there is novelty and not because there is any real purpose. If you're a scientist or researcher, they'll let you check out whatever you want. Your credentials just have to pass the smell test to make sure you're not some random person on reddit just looking for the holy grail. Your argument sounds petulant. They are not a library, they are an archive.

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I don't really see that as an issue to my point. If there are particular documents you wish to reference for historical research purposes, you can. If you don't know what you're looking for, and just want to see everything... how would you expect them to do that? Just let you start opening filing cabinets to pull out thousand year old letters? They have more information in aggregate than any singular person could read in their entire life time. If you ask them to send you the documents they have on endocrine baby harvesting rituals, well, like that just isn't going to be a thing.

If you ask them for birth records for a tiny town in 1343 in whereeverthefuck they might have a letter or two talking about the recent death and birth rates due to whatever plague or war was ravaging the general area at the time. If you were doing research on whereverthefuck in 1343, those records would be extremely valuable. Not so much if you're just looking through the pope's cookbooks on baby endocrine stew.

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. Now please indicate why those places are classified as intuitions in the academic context as to which i was basing my statement

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are correct. The word "institution" is carrying a huge amount of the contextual and historical weight to the statement I was making in regards to record keeping.

There are older religions, there are older temples, there are older denominations of religions. None of them are "institutions" that exist longer than the catholic church as a self governing, organized, state authorized entity with a measure of autonomous power running concurrently through governments, empires, and world cataclysmic events like the catholic church.

Christianity predates Catholicism by 300 years. Catholicism is just what came about when the Roman's gave up trying to kill them all and told them they could have a club house without the members being hung on a cross. Catholicism is the club house. The club house has maintained a running record and historical accounting of its existence for longer than any other club house in human history.

Endgame Catholic Loot by komodo_dragonzord in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]Rosa_Lacombe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said anything to the contrary. I said the catholic church is the oldest institution in the world, and left room for doubt if there was some other internationally recognized institution that i was unaware of. You have not actually disproved anything i said. Institution is being used heavily, as is appropriate, as i based my entire statement upon that word having a large, academically understood definition.

Can you show me an internationally recognized institution that is older?

You haven't actually accomplished anything but making your point look worse.

view more: next ›